BoxRec

In their prime (Thir prime lasting longer then 5 fights)...champs and non champs

I took it to a top 25, after that, a specific ranking is fuzzy at best, and would have to reasonably be an "honorable mention" in no particular order.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe frazier
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Louis
7. Ike Ibeabuchi (we would be in the middle of an Ibeabuchi era were it not for the arrest)
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Gene Tunney
11 Ezzard Charles
12.Evander Holyfield
13.Mike Tyson
14.Riddick Bowe
15 Floyd Patterson
16.Roland LaStarza
17 Harry Matthews
18 Ernie Shavers
19 Jersey Joe Walcott
20 Ken Norton
21 Jim Corbett
22 Ron Lyle
23 Greg Peralta
24 Jim Jeffries
25 Oscar Bonavena

Honerable mention;
Michael Dokes, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, Karl Mildenberger, John Henry Lewis, (10 more pounds, he would have been a top 10 all time HW) Billy Conn (1938 to 41 only, before and after he was awful)

I can only look on in utter disbelief that some would have Lennox Lewis on a list like this.

The Jeffries fight may have been anticipated but I don't think it is parrticularly relevant to when Langford took over. Wills takeover from Langford is also a bit unclear because Wills seemed to be winning most of the fights even early on but was knocked out twice whereas he could not stop Langford until 1918.

Godfrey was not in serious contention until at least 1925. He did nothing impressive in 1923-1924. Jack Renault would rate higher for this period.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Godfrey was not in serious contention until at least 1925. He did nothing impressive in 1923-1924. Jack Renault would rate higher for this period.

godfreys record is not complete cojimar. u make so many accusations cojimar yet never bring forth ur list......lets see it

cosand wrote:In their prime (Thir prime lasting longer then 5 fights)...champs and non champs

I took it to a top 25, after that, a specific ranking is fuzzy at best, and would have to reasonably be an "honorable mention" in no particular order.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe frazier
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Louis
7. Ike Ibeabuchi (we would be in the middle of an Ibeabuchi era were it not for the arrest)
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Gene Tunney
11 Ezzard Charles
12.Evander Holyfield
13.Mike Tyson
14.Riddick Bowe
15 Floyd Patterson
16.Roland LaStarza
17 Harry Matthews
18 Ernie Shavers
19 Jersey Joe Walcott
20 Ken Norton
21 Jim Corbett
22 Ron Lyle
23 Greg Peralta
24 Jim Jeffries
25 Oscar Bonavena

Honerable mention;
Michael Dokes, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, Karl Mildenberger, John Henry Lewis, (10 more pounds, he would have been a top 10 all time HW) Billy Conn (1938 to 41 only, before and after he was awful)

I can only look on in utter disbelief that some would have Lennox Lewis on a list like this.

marcianos slightly too high


- joe louis is wayy to low

- ike ibeabuchi # 7? are u kidding me


- roland lastarzas far too high. how could lastarza possibly rate over walcott when walcott accomplished alot more in that same era???


- harry kid mathews? thats a joke. i see ur very bias with rocky marciano. mathews shouldnt even rate in ur top 100. he was more of a lightheavyweight



- peralta is wayy to high. he was more of a lightheavyweight


- shavers is tooo high

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

cosand wrote:In their prime (Thir prime lasting longer then 5 fights)...champs and non champs

I took it to a top 25, after that, a specific ranking is fuzzy at best, and would have to reasonably be an "honorable mention" in no particular order.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe frazier
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Louis
7. Ike Ibeabuchi (we would be in the middle of an Ibeabuchi era were it not for the arrest)
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Gene Tunney
11 Ezzard Charles
12.Evander Holyfield
13.Mike Tyson
14.Riddick Bowe
15 Floyd Patterson
16.Roland LaStarza
17 Harry Matthews
18 Ernie Shavers
19 Jersey Joe Walcott
20 Ken Norton
21 Jim Corbett
22 Ron Lyle
23 Greg Peralta
24 Jim Jeffries
25 Oscar Bonavena

Honerable mention;
Michael Dokes, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, Karl Mildenberger, John Henry Lewis, (10 more pounds, he would have been a top 10 all time HW) Billy Conn (1938 to 41 only, before and after he was awful)

I can only look on in utter disbelief that some would have Lennox Lewis on a list like this.

marcianos slightly too high

- joe louis is wayy to low

- ike ibeabuchi # 7? are u kidding me

- roland lastarzas far too high. how could lastarza possibly rate over walcott when walcott accomplished alot more in that same era???

- harry kid mathews? thats a joke. i see ur very bias with rocky marciano. mathews shouldnt even rate in ur top 100. he was more of a lightheavyweight

- peralta is wayy to high. he was more of a lightheavyweight

- shavers is tooo high

For some lists silence is best.

In any case Godfrey does not have any wins in 1923-1924 that would allow him to claim top status. Jack Renault was beating him during this period and he lacks impressive wins. It would appear Godfrey emerged as a serious threat in 1925.

Dempsey was inactive between the Firpo and Tunney fights whereas Wills was still active but Wills competition was not exceptional.
It would have been interesting to see Wills fight Gibbons, Greb or Miske.

Lennox Lewis might have to be considered the best during the 90s even though he was not undisputed champion for much of the decade because he was more consistant than any of his rivals.

No option for Vitali Klitschko? This poll has no credibility.

<marcianos slightly too high>

Only if you buy into the revisionist history that claims his compition was lax, which is nonsense



<joe louis is wayy to low>

Actually, I was being generous. His periodic lack luster performences might has warrented him being one or two slots lower


<ike ibeabuchi # 7? are u kidding me>

No, as a matter of fact I am not kidding you. In fact, had things not have happend the way they did, he might well have proven to be in the top 5 by the time his career was over



<roland lastarzas far too high. how could lastarza possibly rate over walcott when walcott accomplished alot more in that same era>

Walcott won the title, Lastarza didnt, but they both lost to Marciano, and even though Walcott put up good battles, it wasnt as impressive as Lastarza's. Now add the fact that lastarza was a better athelete, had more skills, and was a better all around fighter then Walcott, and there you have it.


<harry kid mathews? thats a joke. i see ur very bias with rocky marciano. mathews shouldnt even rate in ur top 100. he was more of a lightheavyweight>

My ranking of Matthews has nothing to do with Marciano, it has to do with his abilty to hurt his opponents with both hands, a tough chin, a ton of heart, and 90 wins over 3 decades against some good compitition.



<peralta is wayy to high. he was more of a lightheavyweight>

Greg went toe to toe with Bonavena, Foreman and Lyle twice each. Many, including me, thought Peralta won both fights with Lyle and the second fight with Bonavena. A highly under rated and fighter, that belongs in anyone's top 25


<shavers is tooo high>

I rate Shaves as high as I do, becase of his power, his heart, and and his willingness to fight anyone any time.
I am a HUGE Ali fan, but I beleive Ernie got robbed on the decision. On that night at least, he was the better fighter.
Also dont forget he is one of the few, if not the only Fighter to deck Larry Holmes during his prime.

cosand wrote:<ike ibeabuchi # 7? are u kidding me>

No, as a matter of fact I am not kidding you. In fact, had things not have happend the way they did, he might well have proven to be in the top 5 by the time his career was over .

You can't seriously rate a fighter that high on speculation, you can't be sure he would be the main man at this time that is just speculation since he accomplished nothing for "real" he doesn't belong on the list.

And Bonavena shouldn't be on the list either.

Thunder and Lightning



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 80
Location: Sweden
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:00 am Post subject:

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

cosand wrote:
<ike ibeabuchi # 7? are u kidding me>

No, as a matter of fact I am not kidding you. In fact, had things not have happend the way they did, he might well have proven to be in the top 5 by the time his career was over .


<You can't seriously rate a fighter that high on speculation, you can't be sure he would be the main man at this time that is just speculation since he accomplished nothing for "real" he doesn't belong on the list.>

And Bonavena shouldn't be on the list either. >

I didnt base the number 7 ranking on any speculation, I based it on seeing a fighter who I beleive showed skill and power that warrented that ranking.
Like I said, if I was to speculate on what might have been, I may have well placed in in the top 5. This was a truelly gifted fighter. A shame he was such a knucklehead outside the ring

AS for Bonavena, 59 wins and 45 KOs at a time when the HW division was as strong as it was at any time in history, more then speaks for itself.
5 of his 9 losses were to current, future or past champions, and 2 others were against top contenders.

Thunder and Lightning



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 80
Location: Sweden
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:00 am Post subject:

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

cosand wrote:
<ike ibeabuchi # 7? are u kidding me>

No, as a matter of fact I am not kidding you. In fact, had things not have happend the way they did, he might well have proven to be in the top 5 by the time his career was over .


<You can't seriously rate a fighter that high on speculation, you can't be sure he would be the main man at this time that is just speculation since he accomplished nothing for "real" he doesn't belong on the list.>

And Bonavena shouldn't be on the list either. >

I didnt base the number 7 ranking on any speculation, I based it on seeing a fighter who I beleive showed skill and power that warrented that ranking.
Like I said, if I was to speculate on what might have been, I may have well placed in in the top 5. This was a truelly gifted fighter. A shame he was such a knucklehead outside the ring

AS for Bonavena, 59 wins and 45 KOs at a time when the HW division was as strong as it was at any time in history, more then speaks for itself.
5 of his 9 losses were to current, future or past champions, and 2 others were against top contenders.

I did'nt see a potential top 5 all time heavy when Ike had a life and death struggle with DAVID TUA!!!! The same Tua that Lewis completly schooled.and Byrd did a better number on than what Ike managed.

Stop beleiveng in internet myths my friend....

Ike Ibeaubuchi being labelled a great heavyweight fighter is as real as Elvis Presley showing up ringside for Rocky Marcianos comeback fight

Walcott won the title, Lastarza didnt, but they both lost to Marciano, and even though Walcott put up good battles, it wasnt as impressive as Lastarza's. Now add the fact that lastarza was a better athelete, had more skills, and was a better all around fighter then Walcott, and there you have it.

ur kidding right??


walcott beat far better competition than lastarza, and was the much better all around fighter. lastarza better skills? u must be dicking me. walcott was clearly the superior all around fighter than lastarza. i think this is clear to any unbias veiwer of the films.

walcott was soundily outboxing marciano and ahead on the scorecards after 13 while lastarza was dominated by marciano and knocked out in 11. so walcott did much better vs marciano. he defintley was more impressive than marciano. lastarza was dominated by marciano, walcott was ahead vs marciano.


who did roland ever beat? no one besides a past it layne and bucceroni. roland avoided fighting the dangerous black contenders of that era.


walcott beat louis, charles 2x, bivins, ray 2x, murray, johnson, maxim 2x, baksi, hatchetman, pack, reddish, agramonte, gomez, etc etc


i mean walcotts resume is far better than lastarzas


walcott would have beat lastarza had they fought

cosand wrote:<marcianos slightly too high>

Only if you buy into the revisionist history that claims his compition was lax, which is nonsense



<joe louis is wayy to low>

Actually, I was being generous. His periodic lack luster performences might has warrented him being one or two slots lower


<ike ibeabuchi # 7? are u kidding me>

No, as a matter of fact I am not kidding you. In fact, had things not have happend the way they did, he might well have proven to be in the top 5 by the time his career was over



<roland lastarzas far too high. how could lastarza possibly rate over walcott when walcott accomplished alot more in that same era>

Walcott won the title, Lastarza didnt, but they both lost to Marciano, and even though Walcott put up good battles, it wasnt as impressive as Lastarza's. Now add the fact that lastarza was a better athelete, had more skills, and was a better all around fighter then Walcott, and there you have it.


<harry kid mathews? thats a joke. i see ur very bias with rocky marciano. mathews shouldnt even rate in ur top 100. he was more of a lightheavyweight>

My ranking of Matthews has nothing to do with Marciano, it has to do with his abilty to hurt his opponents with both hands, a tough chin, a ton of heart, and 90 wins over 3 decades against some good compitition.



<peralta is wayy to high. he was more of a lightheavyweight>

Greg went toe to toe with Bonavena, Foreman and Lyle twice each. Many, including me, thought Peralta won both fights with Lyle and the second fight with Bonavena. A highly under rated and fighter, that belongs in anyone's top 25


<shavers is tooo high>

I rate Shaves as high as I do, becase of his power, his heart, and and his willingness to fight anyone any time.
I am a HUGE Ali fan, but I beleive Ernie got robbed on the decision. On that night at least, he was the better fighter.
Also dont forget he is one of the few, if not the only Fighter to deck Larry Holmes during his prime.

Oh boy.

Decagon wrote:I got shit for putting Ibeabuchi at #33.

The difference is that your list was perfectly sensible except for
(i) what looks like a somewhat forced tendency to put second-rate 1990s and 2000s fighters in there (Byrd, Ikeabuchi, Rahman, Tua) and
(ii) an overly harsh treatment of pre-1925 fighters (on this second point the blunders in your list seem less bad than on the first though).

So one goes through your list, notes the points of disagreement, and argues the case.

In contrast, this genetleman's list is obviously nonsense from start to finish.

Terence wrote:Well, he gave it a bash. Any conversation about Ike is going to end with very detailed arguments as to what he did and the reply "well his career got caught short so who knows what he could have done." It sounds simplistic until you consider that when it comes down to it all us guys do more or less the same thing.

For example anyone who rates Louis higher than Rocky needs to use a "well if that fight was ... Joe could have..." argument or some kind of opposition based one.

I think Cosand is going to be able to push the envelope a fair bit and all we can do is rail at him. That is what fantasy ranking entails, opinion, if it was about fact we would plump for Joe or Rocky to be #1.

He didnt even rate Holmes at all!!! .... he is hereby banned from my thread!.... :x :x :x

Louis definitely rates ahead of Marciano. There's no question at all on that point.

Is a top 10/15/20 HW list a sort of fingerprint for the personality? I see a list and immediately make all kinds of assumptions about the poster. Anyone else do this?

Ezzard wrote:Is a top 10/15/20 HW list a sort of fingerprint for the personality? I see a list and immediately make all kinds of assumptions about the poster. Anyone else do this?

Yeah, like the guy is either 15 or a crack head!... 8)

silkov wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Is a top 10/15/20 HW list a sort of fingerprint for the personality? I see a list and immediately make all kinds of assumptions about the poster. Anyone else do this?

Yeah, like the guy is either 15 or a crack head!... 8)

So how can you tell a top 10 has been posted by a crack head???

ROCK-y??? (apologies for that)

Someone's age can be worked out, but not always.

cosand wrote:In their prime (Thir prime lasting longer then 5 fights)...champs and non champs

I took it to a top 25, after that, a specific ranking is fuzzy at best, and would have to reasonably be an "honorable mention" in no particular order.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe frazier
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Louis
7. Ike Ibeabuchi (we would be in the middle of an Ibeabuchi era were it not for the arrest)
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Gene Tunney
11 Ezzard Charles
12.Evander Holyfield
13.Mike Tyson
14.Riddick Bowe
15 Floyd Patterson
16.Roland LaStarza
17 Harry Matthews
18 Ernie Shavers
19 Jersey Joe Walcott
20 Ken Norton
21 Jim Corbett
22 Ron Lyle
23 Greg Peralta
24 Jim Jeffries
25 Oscar Bonavena

Honerable mention;
Michael Dokes, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, Karl Mildenberger, John Henry Lewis, (10 more pounds, he would have been a top 10 all time HW) Billy Conn (1938 to 41 only, before and after he was awful)

I can only look on in utter disbelief that some would have Lennox Lewis on a list like this.

Cosand,
thanks you for remember Goyo Peralta and Ringo Bonavena, but behind their is Luis Firpo. I remember two names in this moment: Arturo Godoy and Ingemar Johansson