BoxRec

barry wrote:Pretty soild list John L.

Thanks.

The Great John L wrote:Hey pound, I couldn't find your list. Did I miss it?

I did not mean to rip the Great John L!

I merely wanted clarification on what seemed to be an out of place pick. Maybe I could learn something from your response as to why you felt Foreman was #16 overall.

Can you PM me your XLS list. I would be interest in viewing it. In return, I will send you a list of nearly 100 names ranked. We might agree on a lot besides Foreman, who I feel is top 6-10 ranked all time heavyweight.

pound per pound wrote: Can you PM me your XLS list. I would be interest in viewing it. In return, I will send you a list of nearly 100 names ranked. We might agree on a lot besides Foreman, who I feel is top 6-10 ranked all time heavyweight.

What process did you use to rank these 100? There’s a lot of ways to rank ATG lists. Direct matchup, skill assessment, accomplishments…?? Why not post your 1-20 here so you can have input into the results that will be tabulated?

BTW, I have no problem with anyone’s rankings because they are all subjective. It’s certainly easy to make a case to have George somewhere in the top 10. It’s also pretty easy to make a case for him not being in the top 10. Same thing for pretty much all of these guys, except for Ali and Louis. Beyond them it’s pretty much an open field.

The Great John L wrote:

pound per pound wrote: Can you PM me your XLS list. I would be interest in viewing it. In return, I will send you a list of nearly 100 names ranked. We might agree on a lot besides Foreman, who I feel is top 6-10 ranked all time heavyweight.

What process did you use to rank these 100? There’s a lot of ways to rank ATG lists. Direct matchup, skill assessment, accomplishments…?? Why not post your 1-20 here so you can have input into the results that will be tabulated?

BTW, I have no problem with anyone’s rankings because they are all subjective. It’s certainly easy to make a case to have George somewhere in the top 10. It’s also pretty easy to make a case for him not being in the top 10. Same thing for pretty much all of these guys, except for Ali and Louis. Beyond them it’s pretty much an open field.

My school of thought is, filmed fights of a fighter in his prime, and ring records have to be the #1 and #2 criteria in ranking fighter. You can not deny what happened in the ring, but you can say I don't think so and so would be able to do this to my fighter " x "guy because ________

Historians input would be close #3 , and news papers would be #4. #5 would be the opinion of others.

Film has to be #1, as it can shed light on a bogus decision, or dispel myths.

In the case of very little or no film, I beleive a historian's opinion who saw the fighters in his day and the ring records are #1 and #2 with the newspapers being #3.

So with film my criteria for ranking fighters is

1. Film - If the fighter is in his prime or near prime. Even a bad film can shed light on style, skills, speed, power and more.

2. Ring Records – These were the official results.

3. Historian’s input – A seasoned person who saw the fighters live. A person who had access to films, oral testimonials, newspaper reports…many of which do not exist today.

4. Newspapers – Reports can vary. I prefer the Newspaper where the fight took place.

5. Opinions of other judges / fighters / promoters / trainers / managers. They can be biased. I value the opinions a bit more when this group had no direct connection to the fighter they are talking about.

With no film on a fighter, my criterion for ranking fighters is:

1. Historian’s input
2. Ring Records
3. Newspapers
4. Opinions of others connected to boxing in the era.


I have seen each fighter I ranked 3x or more on film, with the exception of Peter Jackson. I also understand how styles can make or break fights. With this in mind here are my top 20 circa 2003 when Lewis was active.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Louis
4. Jeffries
5. Liston
6. Lewis
7. Foreman
8. Dempsey
9. Marciano
10. Bowe
11. Holyfeild
12. Tyson
13. Frazier
14. Johnson
15. Tunney
16. Langford
17. Norton
18. Fitzsimmons
19. Jackson
20. Chalres

pound per pound wrote:So with film my criteria for ranking fighters is

1. Film - If the fighter is in his prime or near prime. Even a bad film can shed light on style, skills, speed, power and more.

2. Ring Records – These were the official results.

3. Historian’s input – A seasoned person who saw the fighters live. A person who had access to films, oral testimonials, newspaper reports…many of which do not exist today.

4. Newspapers – Reports can vary. I prefer the Newspaper where the fight took place.

5. Opinions of other judges / fighters / promoters / trainers / managers. They can be biased. I value the opinions a bit more when this group had no direct connection to the fighter they are talking about.

With no film on a fighter, my criterion for ranking fighters is:

1. Historian’s input
2. Ring Records
3. Newspapers
4. Opinions of others connected to boxing in the era.

OK. I think we all take these things into consideration, but how do you actually rank them in order? I understand it’s great to see them on film. But after you’ve watched all the film, read all the books, news accounts, etc., what is that tells you, for example, Holmes should be ranked higher than Louis? Is it based on who you think would win if the two fought? And if yes, does that mean that everyone ranked lower would lose to those ranked higher? Or is it some numerical ranking different of different skills? Or do you simply write down a list in order of who you think is better? Just curious.

The Great John L wrote:

pound per pound wrote:So with film my criteria for ranking fighters is

1. Film - If the fighter is in his prime or near prime. Even a bad film can shed light on style, skills, speed, power and more.

2. Ring Records – These were the official results.

3. Historian’s input – A seasoned person who saw the fighters live. A person who had access to films, oral testimonials, newspaper reports…many of which do not exist today.

4. Newspapers – Reports can vary. I prefer the Newspaper where the fight took place.

5. Opinions of other judges / fighters / promoters / trainers / managers. They can be biased. I value the opinions a bit more when this group had no direct connection to the fighter they are talking about.

With no film on a fighter, my criterion for ranking fighters is:

1. Historian’s input
2. Ring Records
3. Newspapers
4. Opinions of others connected to boxing in the era.

OK. I think we all take these things into consideration, but how do you actually rank them in order? I understand it’s great to see them on film. But after you’ve watched all the film, read all the books, news accounts, etc., what is that tells you, for example, Holmes should be ranked higher than Louis? Is it based on who you think would win if the two fought? And if yes, does that mean that everyone ranked lower would lose to those ranked higher? Or is it some numerical ranking different of different skills? Or do you simply write down a list in order of who you think is better? Just curious.

The list is based on how I think each fighter would do vs the entire field if they somehow all fought each other in a round robin format after considering all the details. The list is a living document. As new information come in things can change.

Sometimes, I would pick a lower ranked fighter to beat a higher ranked fighter. A lower ranked fighter can have the right style and skills needed to win.

In the case of Holmes over Louis, Holmes in my opinion he is better equipped to beat the tricky boxers because he had a longer jab and better footwork. Holmes had the better chin to avoid the TKO's / KO's vs the punchers. Holmes was technically sound with less mechanical flaws to take advantage of. Louis was the better puncher. Louis would do better vs guys who went at him or stood still, but not all fighters fight the same way.

Decagon wrote:I simultaniously feel like slapping you in the face and giving you a high-five. I agree that Foreman's overrated, but #16? Below Harry Wills and Sam Langford? I mean, do you think that Ezzard Charles could beat George Foreman? Holyfield struggled with an old Foreman, yet he's ranked above a prime Foreman?

Of course, one of my basic criteria is ranking people based on what they did, rather than what they might have done. Why do you choose to go so far into the fantasy side of things?

You could simply try reading my earlier post when I explained Foreman at #16 to pound per pound. But no, you simply chose to be your usual simple minded self.

BTW, I never said Foreman was over rated, did I? You could put some effort into this and try reading the entire thread. If you would like me to re-post some of my earlier posts using some dumbed down examples I would be happy to do so. Otherwise, please try baiting someone else because you always end up looking rather foolish.

Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Jim Jeffries
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Jersey Joe Walcott
18. Jack Sharkey
19. Max Schmelling
20. Michael Spinks
21. Ken Norton
22. Floyd Patterson
23. Chris Byrd
24. Earnie Shavers
25. Sam Langford
26. Archie Moore
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Joe Jeannette
29. Harry Wills
30. Ike Ibeabuchi
31. Max Baer
32. George Godfrey
33. Jimmy Bivins
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Roland LaStarza
36. Ingemar Johanssen
37. David Tua
38. Ron Lyle
39. Pinklon Thomas
40. Elmer Ray

Didn't George destroy Joe, yet you place Joe ahead of George? And it's nice to see that you think Marciano could beat Tyson, Lewis and Bowe. And I notice Ibeabuchi at #30. I prefer to rate fighters on what they did not what they could have done.

Decagon wrote:Oh, I've read your posts. I'm just curious as to why you rank fighters based on what you believe they could have done, rather than based on what they actually did.

You simple minded gurkin. Perhaps you should check your own rankings. There's nothing wrong with starting a dialog, but why must you be a such a witless loser? Do you actually have some footage of Ali beating Louis? And maybe Foreman really didn't KO Frazier twice in that little fantasy world known as the Decagon brain. And has Ike continued his brief career in prison?

Decagon wrote:The people that Ali did beat are a more impressive group of heavyweights than any other fighter got the better of. Ali accomplished much, much more than Louis did, in part because better fighters were around. Ali also didn't lose early on, the way Louis did to Schmeling. What Ali actually did was more impressive than what Louis actually did.

Not sure I agree. The young Joe Louis brutalized Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Primo Carnera, Jack Sharkey, Paolino Uzcudun, Jim Braddock. A pretty impressive list, if anything more impressive than the list of Ali's more notable early victims - Henry Cooper, Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, Karl Mildenberger, Cleveland Williams. Sure, Louis had that Schmeling loss, but they way he avenged it didn't leave any questions.

Ali had a second great career in the 70s, beating Frazier, Foreman, and Norton. It's true that Louis second career (after WWII) wasn't quite as illustrous (he was also older), but he still beat Walcott, Conn, and Mauriello.

But then, Louis lost only to the hall-of-famers Schmeling, Charles, and Marciano Ali lost to Frazier, Norton, Holmes - OK till here - but then: Spinks and Berbick. The latter two are rather embarassing (but then don't matter that much compared to Ali's achievements).

One can turn and twist Ali's and Louis' records as often as one wishes, both remain incredible, and at the end of the day there is little to choose between the two.

pound per pound wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

pound per pound wrote:So with film my criteria for ranking fighters is

1. Film - If the fighter is in his prime or near prime. Even a bad film can shed light on style, skills, speed, power and more.

2. Ring Records – These were the official results.

3. Historian’s input – A seasoned person who saw the fighters live. A person who had access to films, oral testimonials, newspaper reports…many of which do not exist today.

4. Newspapers – Reports can vary. I prefer the Newspaper where the fight took place.

5. Opinions of other judges / fighters / promoters / trainers / managers. They can be biased. I value the opinions a bit more when this group had no direct connection to the fighter they are talking about.

With no film on a fighter, my criterion for ranking fighters is:

1. Historian’s input
2. Ring Records
3. Newspapers
4. Opinions of others connected to boxing in the era.

OK. I think we all take these things into consideration, but how do you actually rank them in order? I understand it’s great to see them on film. But after you’ve watched all the film, read all the books, news accounts, etc., what is that tells you, for example, Holmes should be ranked higher than Louis? Is it based on who you think would win if the two fought? And if yes, does that mean that everyone ranked lower would lose to those ranked higher? Or is it some numerical ranking different of different skills? Or do you simply write down a list in order of who you think is better? Just curious.

The list is based on how I think each fighter would do vs the entire field if they somehow all fought each other in a round robin format after considering all the details. The list is a living document. As new information come in things can change.

Sometimes, I would pick a lower ranked fighter to beat a higher ranked fighter. A lower ranked fighter can have the right style and skills needed to win.

In the case of Holmes over Louis, Holmes in my opinion he is better equipped to beat the tricky boxers because he had a longer jab and better footwork. Holmes had the better chin to avoid the TKO's / KO's vs the punchers. Holmes was technically sound with less mechanical flaws to take advantage of. Louis was the better puncher. Louis would do better vs guys who went at him or stood still, but not all fighters fight the same way.

pound-So when you say a round robin tournament, are you only considering the fighters you are ranking? In another words, if you are ranking 20 guys, are you only counting what you think they would do the against the other 19 fighters?

Then if you ranked say 30 guys, you are ranking them on how they would do against the other 29?

Ambling Alp wrote:

pound per pound wrote:

The Great John L wrote: The list is based on how I think each fighter would do vs the entire field if they somehow all fought each other in a round robin format after considering all the details. The list is a living document. As new information come in things can change.

Sometimes, I would pick a lower ranked fighter to beat a higher ranked fighter. A lower ranked fighter can have the right style and skills needed to win.

In the case of Holmes over Louis, Holmes in my opinion he is better equipped to beat the tricky boxers because he had a longer jab and better footwork. Holmes had the better chin to avoid the TKO's / KO's vs the punchers. Holmes was technically sound with less mechanical flaws to take advantage of. Louis was the better puncher. Louis would do better vs guys who went at him or stood still, but not all fighters fight the same way.

pound-So when you say a round robin tournament, are you only considering the fighters you are ranking? In another words, if you are ranking 20 guys, are you only counting what you think they would do the against the other 19 fighters?

Then if you ranked say 30 guys, you are ranking them on how they would do against the other 29?

Correct. The process is the same, and it can be very tedious. There is a lot of guess work involved as some fighters never fought certain styles. Some fighters are hard to peg. For example, where do you rate a big puncher with suspect durability? How about a smallish boxer with no power and little range, but great speed and skills? And let's not forget the over achiever types who don't look good on film, but will their way to victory. How would they do vs better competition?

In the end, styles can make fights, and punchers can end them quickly. I beleive the single most important attributes for all time heavyweight is durability.

Pound - This an interesting way to rate fighters.
I really like that this way really forces you to think of the strengths and weaknesses of each fighter.

It could create an interesting scenario:
If fighter A is rated slightly higher than fighter B in a top 20 list, isn't it possible that fighter B would rated higher in a top 30 list?
(If you think fighter A would lose to some guys rated 21-30, and fighter B wouldn't).

A possible weakness in this would be that it may favor a guy that lost a lot fights to guys that wouldn't even be considered on this list, like say Jack Sharkey or Johnny Risko. (Or Fritzie Zivic if you are doing a lower weight class)

Of course there are flaws in any system that do can come up with.

I also like that you consider several sources such as film, ring records, newspapers, people that were connected etc. I do that as well.

Of course each has their own limitations.
With film, you have to see a fighter fighter several times against various styles. The fact that films was poor or nonexistent for some fighters is also a problem. Nevertheless, much can be learned from film.

Ring Record - doesn't tell the whole story. just by going by that, you don't factor in bad decisions, bad refereeing, injuries etc.
However, if you take a real hard look at fighters record (not just his win/loss record)and how he fared against his opponents ( taking into consideration how good the opponet was at the time that they fought), a lot can be learned.

Newspapers and what people say that were there also have problems. there is going to be bias and ignorance. Still, you can learn some things that otherwise you wouldn't.

I agree that all of these factors should be taken into consideration when rating fighters. And I also agree that you need to continually tweak things as more information become available.

Bump. More rankings please!

Thanks to those who have posted their rankings

Terence wrote:Larry Holmes

Lennox Lewis

Muhammed Ali

Joe Louis

Jack Johnson

Sonny Liston

Ezzard Charles

'Vander

Based on a mix of skills and legacies. Anything above 7-8 is too unwieldy but the following would get consideration: Marciano, Walcott, Bowe, Frazier and Foreman.

why ezzard charles over rocky marciano, joe frazier, george foreman??

Terence, could you please put your fighters in ranking order if you want them to count towards the overall tally. At the moment they are no use to me.[/quote]

I thought those names just fell out of a jar and landed that way.....

[quote="Decagon"][quote="Professor X"]Mmm-hmm. And Michael Spinks, a great lightheavyweight, came up and beat an old Holmes. Is he in your top-25 heavyweight list? [/quote]Yes.[/quote]

Whoah.

Okay.

Louis
Ali
Marciano
Dempsey
Holyfield(that guy that flattened Douglas was really fast and really strong and really talented)
Johnson(defensive master always in the fight)
Foreman(slow at times, yes, but punched every bit as hard as Marciano)
Holmes(mostly bored me to death, though)
Lewis(strangely underrated...he boxed, but he would fight, too...supremely confident)
Frazier(the slim '69 version...not the 32 yr old doughboy that rematched Foreman)

Professor X wrote:

Decagon wrote:

Professor X wrote:Mmm-hmm. And Michael Spinks, a great lightheavyweight, came up and beat an old Holmes. Is he in your top-25 heavyweight list?

Yes.

Whoah.

Okay.

Louis
Ali
Marciano
Dempsey
Holyfield(that guy that flattened Douglas was really fast and really strong and really talented)
Johnson(defensive master always in the fight)
Foreman(slow at times, yes, but punched every bit as hard as Marciano)
Holmes(mostly bored me to death, though)
Lewis(strangely underrated...he boxed, but he would fight, too...supremely confident)
Frazier(the slim '69 version...not the 32 yr old doughboy that rematched Foreman)

I just saw a picture of Frazier when he was in the olympics and my god he was thin. Almost didnt recognize him. Was he a HW in the 64 Olympics? I know he won a gold, just not sure of his weight calss.

Terence wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I thought those names just fell out of a jar and landed that way.....

It could be, although I'd much rather prefer to have a jar rather than a pointless opinion, plus one that amounts to a banal statement rather than anything else.

#1 Larry Holmes

Technically the best of all times. Great jab, more consistent than Ali's, less reliance of footwork and a greater ability to mix-up combinations of effective punches as opposed to flurrying.

#2 Lennox Lewis

Great blend of athleticism and skill. One of the hardest hitters of all time, in terms of single shots. Great legacy, question marks over his chin but if the top three paired off it is unlikely Ali or Holmes would expose this weakness.

#3 Muhammad Ali

Reasons should be obvious, not unbeatable though.

#4 Joe Louis

Most well-balanced fighter outside of a peak Sonny Liston. Rare example of a two-fisted fighter and probably capable of beating top three if trained in modern era, vagaries of size might be compensated for with modern training methods but who knows.

#5 Jack Johnson

Flashes of style and very good build plus stature. Also a great innovator.

# 6 Ezzard Charles

Came up from a weight class he had set a great legacy in. Great skills. Win over Louis was punch-perfect in parts. Skills higher than Marciano and greater overall legacy in two-weights. Just a beteer fighter than Rocky.

#7 Evander Hoylfield

Not the biggest, not the most talent, not the easiest of careers but a great achiever.

#8 Joe Frazier

#9 Marciano

#10 George Foreman

Not enough footage of some of the pre-Johnson fighters to make a rational judgement.

By any chance are you related to Holmes, Lewis and Charles? :)

Jack Johnson Argue with me all you like, but there was not a fighter in his time with the skills nor the power and athlectism that the 'Galveston Giant' had. He conquered the 'Negro' division and then became the Undisputed champion. Although he faced mostly white men during his championship reign, how could blame him? That was where the money was. Over-all he beat the best of his time, despite the races, and he competively fought into his 50's, offering challenges to Dempsey, Firpo and even Joe Louis, denied all times. Who else can lay claim to all that? Oh and he broke the color barrier well before Louis and Robinson, so his importance outside the ring is as well noted as his pugilistic career.

Muhammad Ali Not the 'Greatest' but surely the 'fastest' Heavyweight in modern times, if not ever. Like Johnson his skills were far and beyond those of his contemporaries and peers, it wasn't until his 3rd decade as an athlete that his skills were deteriorated (TKO 11 Holmes). He was relatively the first champion since Burns to have did a 'world' tour defending his title against the British/German/European champions. After a three year exile, he returned and again regained his title in 1974. He lost his title in 1978 only to regain it again later that year. Often criticised still to this day for his 'lack of punching power' but even after he lost all his speed and agility, he was still the most dominate Heavyweight. That and his life outside the ring, as well as using his 'Louisville Lip' brought boxing to another level in popularity.

Rocky Marciano Over-came a late start, short reach, and crude style to over come a division ripe with talent. Rather than 'waste' years working his way to the top, Marciano took on the best fighters available and got attention real quick as a 'force' in the division. Though he is thought of as a crude fighter who just had a punch, by the time he retired, undefeated with a 88% KO percentage, his bobbing and weaving abilities were Dempsey-like. With relatively no amatuer experience, and not having a trainer until his 10th pro fight, Marciano worked harder than any other fighter of his era. He worked down to 180 pounds, training as if he were a bare-knuckle fighter, to have the endurance to go 45 rounds. Ask Walcott, Louis and Charles and Moore, they will tell you, Marciano was the hardest hitting man they ever faced.

Joe Louis 25 title defenses. Nearly 12yrs as champion. Could knock a man out with a 6" punch. Defeated virtually every single man of his era. Faced more ex/future champions than any other Heavyweight with a relatively high success rate against them. Dismissed as a 'stalker' Joe Louis was a true and pure fighting machine from the waist up, his combinations were frightening. Take one look at the second Schmeling fight, and you can see the brilliance and importance of Joe Louis. Arguably the greatest puncher over-all in history, despite the divisions.

Jack Dempsey No one fighter in history has been reveered to an almost 'legendary' status as Dempsey has. When mentioned he is almost on the level of Paul Bunyan and John Henry in his mystique, that is how beloved this fighter is. After the 'Great White Hope' era, Dempsey emerged from the street and rail cars to dethrone the over-sized giants of the time, such as Carl Morris and Fred Fulton in short order. His massacre of Jess Willard is a sight to behold. No fighter probably has been as important or as popular in the sport. When Babe Ruth was hitting home runs and Red Grange was going for touch downs, Dempsey was making more money than the two men combined. Though his championshipreign had little title defenses, nobody can argue his skill or his toughness and power.

Larry Holmes Following a popular champion is very hard for anybody, but Holmes probably had it worse than anybody. His skills were, like Ali and Johnson, far and beyond anybody of his era. His jab in my opinion was the greatest there was. 20 title defenses and going undefeated in his first 48 fights is hardly to scoff at. Though most of his title defenses were against grade C and B level fighters, Holmes shouldn't be over looked. History I believe will judge Holmes more kindly than the critics did when he was champion. When he was undefeated at 48-0 people criticised him for nearing Marciano's record. When he won recognition as champion with his win over Norton nobody cared. Even when he beat Ali in 1980, people scorned him. They criticised his style and said he lacked a killer attitude. It was totally unfair. Not to mention his comeback in the late 80's to mid 90's was phenomenal. Holmes had it all but respect.

George Foreman Undefeated in his first 40 fights. Most of his opponents made it passed the 3rd round. His power and ferocity was unlike any other fighter before him. A giant of a man in the 70's Foreman used his brute strength and Liston-like attitude to frighten the division. His kayo's of Frazier and Norton are amazing. After losing the title to Ali, he once tried to prove he was the 'baddest man on the planet' by beating 5 top contenders in 1975 all in the same night. After a loss to Jimmy Young in 77' Foreman mysteriously disappeared from sight and became an ordained minister. He returned to the ring in 1987 and despite all the laughs and 'sideshow' atmosphere, Foreman pressed on. In 1991 he showed up Holyfield in a very impressive showing for the title, but lost the decision. In 1993 he lost a controversial decision to Tommy Morrison for the WBO title. In 1994 he shocked the world when he knocked out newly crowned Michael Moorer in the 10th round. He held on to the 'lineal' title until 1997, losing a highly controversial decision to Shannon Briggs. Foreman in his first 'career' was a brute, in his second, a saavy tactician. He turned the sport upside down, and was an inspiration to his fellow Heavyweights from the 70's and 80's as they too made comebacks.

Evander Holyfield Still considered the greatest Cruiserweight champion there ever was, though he is considered a has-been nowadays still fighting on in pursuit of the Heavyweight crown at 42, Evander Holyfield over came alot to become one of the all-time greatest champions. He blew away former champion Dokes to defeat newly crowned Douglas, to defeat both Foreman and Holmes, and still no respect. It wasn't until he lost to Bowe that the critics and fans gave Holyfield his due. He went on to regain the title another three times, being the only man in history to win the Heavyweight title FOUR times. His resume consists of wins over the best fighters of the 90's, facing all the top men: Tyson, Bowe, Moorer and Lewis, with a high success rate against them all. He plans to not retire until he has won one of the four belts, becoming a 5x Heavywieght champion.

Lennox Lewis Three times Heavyweight champion. Defeating the best in Britain and in America. Nobody can lay claim to having faced virtually every top man in the 90's til his 2004 retirement. His list of victims includes Tyson, Mercer, Holyfield, Bruno, McCall, Rahman, Klitschko, Morrison, Golota, Briggs, Weaver, Mason, Ruddock. Need I say more? He is the best of the 'big' men since Holmes, using his 85" reach advatge to pick apart his opponents. Only his ego and cockiness seemed to be his weakness, as he would not train well against opponents he felt were beneath him---all his losses he avenged in short order. Truly the last dominate champion of our times.

Mike Tyson His climb through the division was unlike no other. In two short years he became Heavyweight champion, at age 20. His power and speed and head movements were amazing, even faster than prior fighters like Dempsey. His main weakness was his psyche, even back as an amateur, but outside of that he seemed invincible. 36-0 he went until his major upset defeat from Buster Douglas in 1990. He defeated former champions Tubbs, Berbick, Smith, Holmes, Spinks, Bruno, Seldon with relative ease. Though in his later years he adopted more of a 'head hunting' style and dropped his skills, he was still a deadly force to be reckoned with up until his retirement, as his one punch power was still evident in such fights as his brawls with Golota (gave the Pole herniated discs in his neck) and his 45 second kayo of Cliff Ettienne. We may never see another like him in our life time.

Jim Jefferies Though he has the shortest fight record of any of the men listed here, Jim Jefferies was light years ahead of his time in terms of success rates. In an era when knock outs were rare, his knockout percentage of well over 75% was remarkable. He was the first 'big' heavyweight, being 6'2" and weighing anywhere from 226-230 pounds and weighing as much as 280 pounds when not in shape. He was a remarkable athletic specimen, and though not a man with polished skills, he was blessed with enormous strength, toughness and determination. He is unfairly remembered in his comeback against Jack Johnson, where he had to lose over 100 pounds and get into shape for a 45 round fight all in a period of 6 months. He still holds the record for the fastest knockout in a Heavyweight title match (55 seconds).

Ezzard Charles If there was a better fighter at Light Heavyweight, we never saw him. Charles was virtually the only fighter at 175 that Moore could not beat. His resume at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight are sights to behold, and was shut out of title shots at both weights. He had the misfortune of following wildly popular Joe Louis, and it wasn't until he butchered Louis in his comeback that he was given the respect he was due. I rank him lower than the men below because even though his record at Heavyweight was superb, his best was truly at lighter weight classes and since we are talking about Heavyweight champions, and most of Charles' defenses were against Jersey Joe Walcott, myself he was 'better' when he wasn't champion, as he defeated most everybody he was matched against.

Sonny Liston Perhaps no other fighter in history has been surrounded in as much mystery and speculation and fear as this man. Over-looked and badly judged because of his losses to Muhammad Ali, Liston was not just a banger. His jab is one of the best, and reputedly could knock a man out with it, as evident in some of his fights. His punching power was so great that in sparring his training partners would wear chest protectors as well as headgear and Liston wear 20 ounce gloves. Though his championship reign is rather short, with two defenses, both 1st round knockouts of Floyd Patterson, Liston's legacy is before and after he was champion. Even into his 40's he fought in Heavyweight tournaments to determine number one contenders. his last fight was a 10th round TKO over the anvil-like Chuck Wepner in 1970. Even George Foreman, who served as Liston's sparring partner for a short time, said Liston was one of the hardest punching men he ever worked with, and even molded himself after him.

Jersey Joe Walcott He lived a 'cinderella' story. A garbage man by day and a fighter by night. Fought for many years in obscurity and denied shots, Walcott didn't become a national figure until he faced Joe Louis, when he had already amassed nearly 60 professional bouts. He lost a controversial decision to Louis, in which many people felt he won. Three years later, at age 37, he finally won the title against Ezzard Charles. His reign was short, and lost to Marciano by KO in the 13th round in 1952. In the rematch he was annhilated in the 1st round. He never fought again. Walcott is deemed a 'lesser' fighter by most fans, but this is far from the truth. Most say he was too old when he faced Marciano, but mind you, up until the KO he was ahead on all cards easily.
His style was extremely hard to beat. He is easily an all-time great, despite his short reign and for many years shut out of opprotunities.

Tommy Burns (Read my thread) 11 title defenses. Over came small stature and weight. Followed wildly popular Jim Jefferies, to become a huge name himself. Became the first man to defend his title around the world, against other countries champions. Unfairly judged by his loss to Johnson. Great skills and great power, held his own against the best Middlweights and Heavyweights of the era.

Gene Tunney I rank Tunney so low because, like Charles, his best was at lighter weight classes. Tunney amassed the majority of his wins at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight bouts. He never faced colored fighters, and his Heavyweight career was rather short, as well as his reign. He was smart financially in chosing a rematch with Dempsey, but in my opinion he never really proved his superiority as champion of that weight. I rank him second-best right behind Charles as a Laight Heavyweight who was shut out from title opprotunities at that division.

Max Schmeling Politics damn near ruined his career and forever tarnished his image. Branded an Nazi when he wasn't, Max Schmeling possibly had the worst public relations with the boxing world than any other man. Winning both German titles at Heavyweight and Light Heavyweight, as well as recognition as the European Light Heavyweight title, he is the only man thus far in history to have won the Heavyweight crown on a DQ. He was a superb tactician and had very good power. His performances against Louis in their first bout was pure genius. Even after he failed to regain the title again, he became German Heavyweight champion in later years.

Jack Sharkey "The Boston Gob" is not very well remembered by fans and is reveered by historians as a fighter who could have been an all-time great but wasted his talents. Remembered unfairly for how he was knocked out by Dempsey and Carnera, Sharkey had skills that few in his era could have matched. After he lost the title he drifted into obscurity, only to make a comeback against Joe Louis, and was knocked out in three rounds. He was philisophical in defeat somewhat along these lines: "Someday when Joe is old, a young up and coming Heavyweight will come after him as well, it happens to everyone, it happened to me tonight."

Max Baer It is so sad how a man who literally had the entire division scared stiff by his power, who could have been one of the top 5 greatest fighters of all time at Heavyweight, pissed away his career. Max Baer, before Joe Louis arrived, had THE hardest punch in the division, whenever it landed 200 pound men dropped. He was cold and relentless in his early years, and only slowed down after he killed two men in the ring, and adopted a more 'clowning' style and attitude. His destruction of Max Schmeling and Carnera are one of the most brutal beatings ever. He had so much talent...it's a shame.

Bob Fitzsimmons The world's first triple crown champion. Winnings titles at Middleweight, Heavyweight and into his 40's the Light Heavyweight crown. "Speckled Bob" was one of the hardest punching and toughest fighters, as well as a very good boxer, there ever was. Most fans have never heard his name, but even the Great John L. Sullivan said Fitzsimmons was "a fighting machine on stilts", due to his awkward appearance. Fitzsimmons was no more than 167 pounds, and stopped 300+ pound men, such as Ed Dunkhorst, in their tracks. His longetivity was Foremanesque. He is truly a legend in the sport.

Jim Corbett Possibly Heavyweight boxing's first 'boxer'. He used his jab and dancing feet to springboard his way through the division. One time a bunch of old-timers, who had seen Corbett fight, was asked what they thought of Muhammad Ali's ring speed. Their answer shocked most people as they said Corbett in their opinion was faster, like a 'dancing moon beam'. His reign was long and was also an accomplished wrestler. He continued to fight for the title after he lost it, in grand shows against Fitzsimmons and Jefferies. His longetivity was great as well, considering the last exhibition bout he had was in 1925 against Gene Tunney.

********************************************************

John L. Sullivan I list him last ONLY because for the majority of the years he fought were under the London Prize Ring Rules, where it was a combination of boxing and graeco-roman wrestling, and a round ended when a man went down. It was almost an entirely different sport.

Sullivan was champion of America in bareknuckle fights for a decade, as well as winning the Marquis of Queensbury, the first Heavyweight title champion, in 1885 holding on to that title for seven years. He was the first Heavyweight champion to go to England, and although he did not defend his title on English soil, he had numerous exhibition bouts against all-comers.

So you can say he was truthfully the first 'world' champion, as England was the mecca of boxing for the last hundred years and America was still trying to get its roots in the sport. It was once said, if Sullivan's record was complete, he would of had well-over 200 knock outs to his credit.

His last defense of his Bareknuckle title was in 1889, a TKO in the 75th round over Jake Kilrain. He lost his Heavyweight championship to Jim Corbett in 1892 and never fought again. Altogether a championship reign of 17yrs.

******************************************************

Honorable Mentions:

James Figg Champion of England, when England was THE boxing capital of the world. He reigned from 1719-1730 (not a typo). He helped establish the 'finer' points of boxing, as he demonstrated the jab and bobbing and weaving, as well as other basic rudiments of boxing. Back then pugilism was a street fight, wrestling, kicking, virtually everything was allowed---and was declared an illegal sport---until the London prize Ring Rules were formulated, in which Figg himself helped make. He retired as champion, presumably undefeated, as his record in sketchy. Later he became a 'teacher' in the arts of combat, a boxing, wrestling and fencing school.

Tom Mulineaux Was the first 'American Champion' even though he was a former slave. Way before Johnson broke the color barrier, he went to England and was trained by Bill Richmond, a Negro boxer, who also was a slave, and faced Tom Cribb, the champion of England. He was greatly cheated out of a victory, and failed to win in the rematch. It was the first fight of note, between a black champion and a white champion. Mulineaux later died of alcoholism.

The 4 champs Johnson, Louis, Ali and Holmes are a group apart in my opinion. I see these as the top tier of elite HWs.

After these 4 it's difficult to rank the others. If Dempsey had beat Wills I'd be willing to put him in this bracket too.

Ezzard wrote:The 4 champs Johnson, Louis, Ali and Holmes are a group apart in my opinion. I see these as the top tier of elite HWs.

After these 4 it's difficult to rank the others. If Dempsey had beat Wills I'd be willing to put him in this bracket too.

That’s pretty much how I look at it as well. In the past, for people who say that a particular HW HAS to be a top 10 ATG HW, I usually said that if their last name isn’t Ali or Louis then they don’t HAVE to be in the top 10. However, adding JJ and Holmes to the list of those who HAVE to be in the top 10 certainly seems reasonable.

Decagon wrote:Hey, I just used that joke in the Tommy Burns thread! You're copying me!

Sorry, I didn't notice that you said that on the other thread until after I had already posted this. Didn't mean to steal your material. :)

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The 4 champs Johnson, Louis, Ali and Holmes are a group apart in my opinion. I see these as the top tier of elite HWs.

After these 4 it's difficult to rank the others. If Dempsey had beat Wills I'd be willing to put him in this bracket too.

That’s pretty much how I look at it as well. In the past, for people who say that a particular HW HAS to be a top 10 ATG HW, I usually said that if their last name isn’t Ali or Louis then they don’t HAVE to be in the top 10. However, adding JJ and Holmes to the list of those who HAVE to be in the top 10 certainly seems reasonable.

It's the next group which is much more difficult to order. Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman and Jeffries all achieved a lot but it really comes down to personal preference.